Dependency: Labour’s Not-So-Secret Weapon

Last week, two comments from Labour politicians exposed the party’s cynical reliance on increasing dependency as its only means of political survival. The first, from Sir Keir Starmer, represents Labour’s classic tactic of shifting responsibility from the individual to the state to influence decision making come election time. The second, from Angela Rayner, exposes the cynicism with which Labour views those it actively condemns to a life of dependency.

On X the Prime Minister “Parents shouldn’t be out of pocket by setting their children up for school,” as he rolled out free breakfast clubs.

At first reading, it almost sounds reasonable. No one wants to see parents out of pocket or anyone else, for that matter. But even on this first reading, something doesn’t sit right. Feeding our kids isn’t some unreasonable burden that leaves parents out of pocket; it’s the purpose of being a parent.

Such was the backlash to this blatant land grab by the state that the Prime Minister tweeted the following day: “I don’t think parents’ pockets should be empty once they’ve fed their kids.” Quite a different statement. But the intent of the original post and most importantly the scope of the policy, makes it clear that this is intended to shift responsibility from the parent to the state.

The Prime Minister claimed this (and the commitment on limiting branded school clothing) would be worth £500 a year. As every parent knows, a saving in one area quickly gets spent on something else. Labour will be hoping that once parents become used to not providing breakfast for their children, the threat that another party might take that benefit away becomes a reason to vote Labour.

This has nothing to do with helping parents, and everything to do with increasing dependency.

This is what Labour does, it relies on state dependency to keep people voting Labour. Gordon Brown’s quiet revolution, under the Blairite gloss of New Labour, was to increase the number of working people relying on benefits.

Even Labour’s consistent support for mass migration carries a heavy dose of state dependency. For every migrant who comes in to take a lower-skilled role, a corresponding Brit is displaced out of the workforce and into the welfare system. Meanwhile, mass migration drives down wages, making it more likely that a worker will need their income topped up by the state or worse still, that benefits pay better than work. In that case, a person chooses benefits out of self-interest while a migrant picks up the job they’ve been priced out of.

At the heart of our broken migration and welfare systems lies a warped view of labour markets, one divorced from any sense of economic necessity.

If Starmer’s comment shows Labour’s active intent to reshape the relationship between the individual and the state for political gain, Rayner’s words show the cynicism behind it. They reveal a clear understanding of the loss of dignity and self-worth suffered by those trapped in dependency.

In her resignation speech, Angela Rayner said:

“People wrote me off, assumed that I would be on benefits the whole of my life. But I wanted to prove them wrong.”

Like with Starmer’s X post, it sounds good at first hearing. You find yourself saying, good for her. As a Conservative, I inherently want to see people escape the trap of benefits and write their own success stories. But underlying Rayner’s comment is the hypocrisy common to socialists.

Her words suggest that she sees a life on benefits as something less than the success she has achieved. Most of us don’t become MPs, let alone rise to the second most senior position in government, so our initial reaction is to applaud her. Yet her entire political creed is not one of empowerment, but dependency. Labour denies that same route out of welfare to those it actively traps in a cycle that many find almost impossible to escape.

Welfare dependency is rightly seen as unfair to those who work are forced to pay for those who don’t.  But for the individual trapped in a lifetime of benefits, there is also a loss of human potential and a denial of the dignity that comes from work. For Rayner, that life wasn’t good enough for her, but she’s happy to impose it on others if it keeps them voting Labour.

Even Rayner’s Employment Rights Bill reflects this same cynical trade-off, language that sounds reasonable, but whose effect is to spread dependency. Every major voice speaking for employers and job creators and not to mention Labour’s owm Resolution Foundation, has warned that this Bill would make it harder to get people into work. In essence, Labour is saying that you’ll have more rights as a worker from day one, but you’re less likely to have a job in which to enjoy those rights. It’s designed to sound like the old worker centric Labour Party of history, while still promoting a culture of dependency over work.

Every time someone points out that a measure such as Labour’s disastrous jobs tax or its Employment Rights Bill will destroy jobs or make it harder for employers to create them, it overlooks the direct electoral benefit Labour sees in increasing dependency.

In recent years, Labour has become an odd coalition of the comfortable cosmopolitans who make up the lanyard class, minority communities where identity politics still has traction, and state dependents. Yet this coalition is increasingly being challenged from its left by a Green Party offering Labour’s cosmopolitan lefties a super-strength dose of virtue, and by Corbyn’s Your Party bringing sectarianism to communities Labour once regarded as their own.

Dependency will remain Labour’s most reliable means of holding onto its dwindling voter base. And in government, it has all the levers of the state to expand that client vote. So however cynical it may seem, expect Labour to do everything it can to keep as many voters reliant on them as possible before the next election.